I agree that there are likely some people who question eligibility solely because of race. I can’t say that every person who uses a racial epithet has that reason as the sole reason, as I believe that there are serious questions that everyone should ask. I denounce any racial slur that is intended as a slur from this and any site.

America elected a non-white President. We are not a country of racists. Although I have my questions, I think back now and again to either the next day or shortly afterward (I can’t remember the exact date) of Obama’s election. There was an elderly Black couple waiting to cross the street at an intersection. I waved them on (as I normally do for anyone). They acknowledged my letting them pass and walked so proudly that I couldn’t help but believe that they felt validated by the election. They were at an age where I am certain they faced discrimination and maybe even brutality, or least were close to some who did experience it. I was genuinely happy for them. I was glad they got to see that a minority race could win enough votes to gain the presidency. If Obama should ever be removed for Constitutional reasons, I would hope that the couple would still know that we are past the age of racism. Racism exists in small pockets around the country, but Obama could have never won the election if racists controlled our country.

Do you believe that for all of the individuals that are questioning President Obama’s eligibility. that race is not a factor with any of them?
From the beginning, this site (and likely as well as for those who promote this site) stands for the constitutional eligibility of anyone who chooses to seek or is in the office of the presidency.

Therefore, since race is not part of the qualifications of Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5, I see no point in even broaching the subject.

-Phil
______________________________________________________________
Phil, actually that question was for Sharon2 because of her question to me.

You spin like the best of them. Even your report is not entirely accurate.

Fortunately, I’ve already tracked the full two-and-a-half-minute 911 call as a part of my tweets on Twitter.

-Phil

_________________________________________________________________
Ok, can you tell me what was “not entirely accurate”?

Do you believe that for all of the individuals that are questioning President Obama’s eligibility. that race is not a factor with any of them?

From the beginning, this site (and likely as well as for those who promote this site) stands for the constitutional eligibility of anyone who chooses to seek or is in the office of the presidency.

Therefore, since race is not part of the qualifications of Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5, I see no point in even broaching the subject.

-Phil

You spin like the best of them. Even your report is not entirely accurate.

Fortunately, I’ve already tracked the full two-and-a-half-minute 911 call as a part of my tweets on Twitter.

-Phil

Have you ever suggested that a person who questions Obama’s eligibility does so only because of race?
__________________________________________________________________
Only the ones that use racial slurs or language when they mention the President. Whether you want to believe it or not some people that are questioning his eligibility are doing it because of his race. Just read the blogs at Orly’s site, repubx, or Stormfront. I personally give everyone the benefit of the doubt.

Do you believe that for all of the individuals that are questioning President Obama’s eligibility. that race is not a factor with any of them?

Like I said before the truth is somewhere in the middle when it comes to 2 accounts of the same story. And I believe it was two people that allowed their emotions to get the best of them. I said that originally and still stick with that observation.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2009/07/28/2009-07-28_911_tapes_in_gates_case_are_colorblind.html

-Phil

- The arrest of Prof Gates was improper because according to Mass Law, a person cannot be arrested for disorderly conduct in their home or on their own property, they have to actually be out in public disturbing other people.
- It was improper for the officer to enter the home when he did not have first hand knowledge that a crime was in progress, for example having seen someone trying to pry the door open.
- On his report he said the woman who made the 911 call was in front of the house when he arrived. The woman says she never spoke to him.
- 4th amendment is to make us safe in our homes from the govt just coming in.
- In many states, if you haven’t been stopped in a vehicle, you are not required to show identification or give your name to an officer just because he asks.
- It’s not against the law to yell at a cop.

If I see a link to the video, I will post it. I think this idea that the police are an authority figure we should obey without question is a post 9/11 phenomenon. I was raised to not smart-mouth cops because it would only make things worse for you, but to make sure they knew you knew your rights and not to let them push you around. For example, like I said before, never, ever let a police officer into your house without a warrant if you didn’t call them. Never talk to the police without an attorney, even if you haven’t done anything wrong, if you didn’t call them. They know your rights. They can’t hold it against you. And don’t ever fall for “if you haven’t done anything wrong, what do you have to worry about talking to us”. If they want to talk to you, you have something to worry about. Not all police are the good and kind angels heroes.

Have you ever suggested that a person who questions Obama’s eligibility does so only because of race?

It also shows a bias to favor blacks over whites…as I have often read (I have not verified), 90% of crimes commited by Blacks are committed against whites…so the police (even black cops) have reason to be suspect and careful…when dealing with blacks at late hours who apparently seem to be acting like one social class in the homes of another social class…and who show IDs without addresses on them…
__________________________________________________________________

Wow CNN. Be careful, your true colors are showing. First of all you make a unverifiable generalized statement. 90% of all crimes committed by Blacks are committed against whites? Really? That is probably one of the most ignorant statements someone could make. If you are going to say something like that, do your research first. First of all…

“Crime in America is predominantly intraracial, not interracial. About 84 percent of single-offender violent crimes committed by blacks are committed against blacks, and 73 percent of violent crimes committed by whites are committed against whites. Likewise, nearly 90 percent of multiple-offender violent crimes committed by blacks are committed against blacks, while about half of multiple-offender crimes committed against whites are committed by whites.”

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0377/is_n117/ai_16354768/pg_3/

But I do know where you got that 90% number from. It is on the infamous David Duke’s official website. So we know what your mindset really is. You sure you don’t have any numbers from Stormfront you don’t want to give to us?

www2.davidduke.com/hatecrimes/hatecrimeactionplan.shtml

You then went on to write cops “…have reason to be suspect and careful…when dealing with blacks at late hours who apparently seem to be acting like one social class in the homes of another social class.” So you are saying what? That Black people only belong in one social class? Black people can only act like they belong? I don’t follow where you are going with that statement. It seems like you are saying that a police officer should always question a Black person if they seem to be in a area where they don’t belong. really. And Blacks should always carry ID with an address on it because if you don’t then you are suspicious. Interesting commentary on race and racial relations by Civis Naturaliter Natus.

Pretend I am from Missouri and SHOW ME where Obama graduated Cum Laude from any undergraduate school, had Harvard Level Law school entrance resume and grades. He had no such thing. His admission to Harvard law school means someone out there was denied his ‘ticket’ because of race.
________________________________________________________________
Anonymous, I decided to “show you” where President Obama graduated cum laude from an undergraduate school…I did not find that. I however did find where he did graduate magna cum laude from Harvard Law…So I would have to believe that he had the Harvard Level Law school enterance resume and grades. That is unless you think that Law School is so much easier that undergrad so it was not difficult to graduate magna cum laude from Harvard.

“Entered Harvard Law School in 1988, was elected the first African–American editor of the Harvard Law Review. He graduated magna cum laude in 1991.”

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/does_barack_obama_have_kenyan_citizenship.html

“…Obama entered Harvard Law School in late 1988. He was selected as an editor of the Harvard Law Review at the end of his first year and president of the journal in his second year. During his summers, he returned to Chicago, where he worked as a summer associate at the law firms of Sidley & Austin in 1989 and Hopkins & Sutter in 1990. After graduating with a Juris Doctor (J.D.) magna cum laude from Harvard in 1991…”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama

I have trouble with the idea that you are a fair person.
________________________________________________________________

Then you would be wrong. I never once advocated selecting someone due to race. I judge everyone equally. If you can point out where I have advocated otherwise, please let me know.